On 19/9/2 17:34, Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> At the end of ocfs2_inode_lock_tracker tmp_oh is true because an
> earlier check on tmp_oh being false returns out of the function.
> Since tmp_oh is true, the function will always return 1 so remove
> the redundant check and return of 0.
>
> Also update description in comment, return -EINVAL and not -1.
>
> Addresses-Coverity: ("Logically dead code")
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Joseph Qi <joseph.qi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> V2: Fix typo of function name in description.
> Update description in comment as noted by Joseph Qi
>
> ---
> fs/ocfs2/dlmglue.c | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/dlmglue.c b/fs/ocfs2/dlmglue.c
> index ad594fef2ab0..640eee2bb903 100644
> --- a/fs/ocfs2/dlmglue.c
> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/dlmglue.c
> @@ -2626,7 +2626,8 @@ void ocfs2_inode_unlock(struct inode *inode,
> *
> * return < 0 on error, return == 0 if there's no lock holder on the stack
> * before this call, return == 1 if this call would be a recursive locking.
> - * return == -1 if this lock attempt will cause an upgrade which is forbidden.
> + * return == -EINVAL if this lock attempt will cause an upgrade which is
> + * forbidden.
> *
> * When taking lock levels into account,we face some different situations.
> *
> @@ -2712,7 +2713,7 @@ int ocfs2_inode_lock_tracker(struct inode *inode,
> return status;
> }
> }
> - return tmp_oh ? 1 : 0;
> + return 1;
> }
>
> void ocfs2_inode_unlock_tracker(struct inode *inode,
>
